MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037312320 · doi:10.1177/095169280201400108

The Schartz-Metterclume Method

2002· article· en· W2037312320 on OpenAlexaff
Dagobert D. Manteltasche, Otto I.Q. Besser-Wisser

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Theoretical Politics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
FundersAmerican Political Science Association
KeywordsMathematical economicsPhenomenonStatistical analysisEpistemologyEconometricsStatistical hypothesis testingSociologyMathematicsComputer sciencePositive economicsStatisticsEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes a parsimonious statistical method for deducing everything that can be known about the unknown by analysing anything that happens to be known about the known. Schartz Metterclume (SM) is a revolutionary new breakthrough in the social sciences that builds upon the synergies of higher mathematics, discourse analysis, rational choice and neo-postdistanciationalist theory. Exhaustive testing of the method shows that it unfailingly produces correct estimates of the causal effects of unknown variables. Indeed the less that is known about the phenomenon under investigation in the first place, the more precise and robust the statistical results of SM are. A brief layman’s account of a parsimonious statistical method of deducing everything that can be known about the unknown by analysing anything that happens to be known about the known. SM = BS 2

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Theoretical PoliticsSame topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207